FAIR TRADING ACT 1989 – SECT 52 52 Assertion of right to payment for unsolicited goods or services, or for making entry in directory–TPA s 64
Posted by: Randal in ScamThis is interesting. From the Queensland Consolidated Acts. From the way I read the article, the ‘scammers’ should be up for a maximum penalty of 540 penalty units for demanding payment for services we haven’t requested and threatening us with legal action. I think I read that wrong. I hate lawyer speak.
When I re-read it, it seems the ‘scammers’ are pretty much covered.
(3) The ‘scammers’ feel they have ‘reasonable cause to believe, that the other person has authorised the making of the entry’ so can claim money from us.
(4) However, we don’t have to pay, and if a payment was made we are entitled to get the money back, if authorisation (6) in the form of a signed or authorised document showing the particulars of the solicitation hasn’t been provided.
That’s my take on it, so please correct me if I am wrong, but it doesn’t look like the ‘scammers’ can be slugged with hefty fines like I had hoped.
FAIR TRADING ACT 1989 – SECT 52
52 Assertion of right to payment for unsolicited goods or services, or for making entry in directory–TPA s 64(1) A person shall not, in trade or commerce, assert a right to payment from another person for unsolicited goods unless the person asserting the right has reasonable cause to believe that there is a right to payment.
Maximum penalty–540 penalty units.
(2) A person shall not, in trade or commerce, assert a right to payment from another person for unsolicited services unless the person asserting the right has reasonable cause to believe that there is a right to payment.
Maximum penalty–540 penalty units.
(3) A person shall not assert a right to payment from another person of a charge for the making in a directory of an entry relating to the other person, or to the profession, business, trade or occupation of the other person, unless the person asserting the right knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that the other person has authorised the making of the entry.
Maximum penalty–540 penalty units.
(4) A person is not liable to make any payment to another person, and is entitled to recover by action in a court of competent jurisdiction against another person any payment made by the person to the other person, in full or part satisfaction of a charge for the making of an entry in a directory unless the first person has authorised the making of the entry.
(5) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be taken to assert a right to payment from another person for unsolicited goods or unsolicited services, or of a charge for the making of an entry in a directory, if the first person–
(a) makes a demand for the payment or asserts a present or prospective right to the payment; or
(b) threatens to bring any legal proceedings with a view to obtaining the payment; or
(c) places or causes to be placed the name of the other person on a list of defaulters or debtors, or threatens to do so, with a view to obtaining the payment; or
(d) invokes or causes to be invoked any other collection procedure, or threatens to do so, with a view to obtaining the payment; or
(e) sends an invoice or other document stating the amount of the payment or stating the price of the goods or services or the charge for making the entry, unless the document contains a warning statement complying with subsection (5A).
(5A) For subsection (5)(e), a warning statement must–
(a) be printed, at the top of the first page of the document, in upper case and a type not smaller than 18-point; and
(b) state ‘THIS IS A SOLICITATION, NOT AN INVOICE FOR A DEBT INCURRED BY YOU.’
(6) A person shall not be taken for the purposes of this section to have authorised the making of an entry in a directory unless–
(a) a document authorising the making of the entry has been signed by, or with the authority of, the person; and
(b) the document specifies–
(i) the name of the directory; and
(ii) the name and address of the person publishing the directory; and
(iii) particulars of the entry; and
(iv) the amount of the charge for the making of the entry or the basis on which the charge is, or is to be, calculated; and
(c) a copy of the document has been given to the person before the right to payment of a charge for the making of the entry is asserted. (7) For the purposes of this section, an invoice or other document purporting to have been sent by or on behalf of a person shall be taken to have been sent by that person unless the contrary is established.
(8) In a proceeding against a person in respect of a contravention of this section–
(a) in the case of a contravention constituted by asserting a right to payment from another person for unsolicited goods or unsolicited services–the burden lies on the defendant of proving that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that there was a right to payment; or
(b) in the case of a contravention constituted by asserting a right to payment from another person of a charge for the making of an entry in a directory–the burden lies on the defendant of proving that the defendant knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the other person had authorised the making of the entry.
(9) In this section–
directory includes a journal, magazine, and similar publication, but does not include–
(a) a publication published in good faith as a newspaper at regular intervals; and
(b) a publication published, or to be published, by or under the authority of the Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation.
entry, in a directory, includes an advertisement promoting a business.
making, in relation to an entry in a directory, means including, or arranging for the inclusion of, the entry.
Entries (RSS)
This explains the loophole they are using to ‘legally’ do the scam. As a legit telemarketer told me, the underlying ethics are optimistically described as “questionable”, but legally they can do it via following the law above, and play on gullibility and generosity of the pigeon (us) they target. If they ring 100 people a day, and only get a dozen, thats a few thousand dollars for a day’s work. No surprise when you buy once, they keep hitting you with more.
They can still be hit with the fines as far as I can see, since according to s.8 “the burden lies on the defendant of proving that the defendant knew or had reasonable cause to believe that there was a right to payment” – the definition of the authorisation being given in s.6. Feelings don’t enter into it, they need to be able to show tangible evidence of WHY they had such a belief of right to payment. Anyone know of any case law on the subject?
Only this one in SA apparently,
Print-friendy versionPrint Email this storyEmail
Last Update: Tuesday, January 10, 2006. 7:37pm (AEDT)
Two fined over police magazine scam
A New South Wales publishing company and its directors have been fined in the Adelaide Magistrates Court over a scam in which they claimed to represent the South Australian Police Department.
Barry John McAuliffe and Peter George Kaleel, on behalf of their company Monitor Publishing, admitted to soliciting advertising for a fictitious magazine known as the ‘Crime Prevention Review’.
Eleven South Australian business people paid between $300 and $1,000 to place an ad.
They received a copy of the Crime Prevention Review.
But the magazine was not distributed to anyone other than those who paid for advertising.
Magistrate Bill Ackland fined Monitor Publishing $14,000 and fined directors McAuliffe and Kaleel $6,000.
Mr Ackland said ironically, one way of preventing crime was to decline an offer of advertising space in the Crime Prevention Review.
It is the first time the South Australian Consumer Affairs Department has successfully prosecuted an interstate company for fraud.